On 18 August 2017 at 01:24, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Ashutosh Bapat > <ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> [2] had a patch with some changes to the original patch you posted. I >> didn't describe those changes in my mail, since they rearranged the >> comments. Those changes are not part of this patch and you haven't >> comments about those changes as well. If you have intentionally >> excluded those changes, it's fine. In case, you haven't reviewed them, >> please see if they are good to be incorporated. > > I took a quick look at your version but I think I like Amit's fine the > way it is, so committed that and back-patched it to v10. > > I find 0002 pretty ugly as things stand. We get a bunch of tuple maps > that we don't really need, only to turn around and free them. We get > a bunch of tuple slots that we don't need, only to turn around and > drop them.
I think in the final changes after applying all 3 patches, the redundant tuple slot is no longer present. But ... > We don't really need the PartitionDispatch objects either, > except for the OIDs they contain. There's a lot of extra stuff being > computed here that is really irrelevant for this purpose. I think we > should try to clean that up somehow. ... I am of the same opinion. That's why - as I mentioned upthread - I was thinking why not have a separate light-weight function to just generate oids, and keep RelationGetPartitionDispatchInfo() intact, to be used only for tuple routing. But, I haven't yet checked Ashuthosh's requirements, which suggest that it does not help to even get the oid list. > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Thanks, -Amit Khandekar EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
